The Rajasthan High Court permits an undertrial prisoner to execute a General Power of Attorney, affirming that incarceration does not equate to civil death.
New Delhi, India Jul 23, 2026 ALN: Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has recently ruled that mere incarceration does not result in the “civil death” of an accused, quashing a trial court order that had refused to let an undertrial prisoner facing Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) charges execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of his brother from inside Jaipur Central Jail. This ruling underscores the legal principle that individuals retain certain civil rights, even while incarcerated, and highlights the importance of ensuring that prisoners can manage their affairs, particularly in challenging circumstances.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who emphasized that a person against whom a criminal case is registered retains the fundamental right to manage their property, including the ability to alienate it through sale. The court made it clear that being a suspect or being lodged in jail does not strip an individual of these rights. This decision is in line with the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 300A, which protects the right to property.
The petitioner, Anand Singh, is currently facing trial in Sessions Case No.54/2020 before the Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. He had filed an application before the trial court requesting permission to execute a General Power of Attorney in favor of his brother, Dilip Singh, and to have the GPA attested and registered within the jail premises. The trial court had previously rejected this application on June 3, 2025, citing concerns that the property mentioned in the GPA could have been acquired using proceeds from criminal activities.
In defending the petition, Anand Singh's counsel, Ashvin Garg and Anutosh Mishra, argued that the petitioner’s family was undergoing a financial crisis and needed to sell part of the jointly-owned property. They contended that the trial court's rejection was based on hypothetical concerns rather than concrete evidence, as neither the chargesheet nor any evidence presented during the trial indicated that the property in question was purchased with illicit funds.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor, representing the Union of India through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, opposed the plea, suggesting that the trial was nearing its conclusion and there remained a possibility that the property may have been purchased with proceeds of crime. The prosecutor maintained that the trial court acted appropriately in denying the request.
In its judgment, the High Court noted that no substantive proof had been presented by the respondents to demonstrate that the property was indeed acquired through illegal means. The court pointed out that mere speculation or imagination could not serve as a basis for denying an individual's rights. Justice Dhand articulated that a person against whom an FIR is lodged retains the fundamental right to manage their property or sell it if necessary, and cannot be deprived of this right simply due to their status as a suspect.
This ruling draws on established legal precedents, referencing the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Nagarkar and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration. These cases affirm that prisoners maintain all civil rights that do not conflict with the reality of their imprisonment. The court also reiterated that the capacity to contract and transfer property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, remains intact for incarcerated individuals.
Additionally, Justice Dhand highlighted provisions under Section 38(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which allows for the appointment of an officer to register documents at the place of confinement. The Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022, also support the execution of a power of attorney by both undertrial and convicted prisoners before the Jail Superintendent or a Magistrate.
The court referenced similar rulings from other High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench decision in Shyam Nayan Tiwari v. State of U.P., which mandated that the Jail Superintendent facilitate the execution of a sale deed by a prisoner, and the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Soma Saha Sen v. State of West Bengal, which affirmed that incarceration does not prevent a prisoner from executing legal documents such as sale deeds.
In laying down the procedure for executing a GPA, the court stated that once a General or Special Power of Attorney is duly attested in jail and registered, the appointed attorney gains the legal authority to execute a sale deed on behalf of the prisoner. The sale deed must explicitly state that it is being executed “for and on behalf of” the prisoner through the Power of Attorney holder. However, the court clarified that this right is subject to statutory restrictions, particularly when the property in question is classified as “case property” or has been attached under relevant legal provisions, necessitating prior permission from the competent Court or Tribunal.
Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court allowed Anand Singh's petition, quashing the earlier trial court order. The court directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur, to promptly attest the General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favor of his brother, Dilip Singh, and to ensure its registration without delay. Furthermore, it stipulated that before executing any sale deed, the petitioner must submit a separate application to the trial court seeking permission to sell the property, which will be decided in accordance with the law.
This ruling not only reinforces the rights of prisoners but also sets a significant legal precedent regarding the treatment of civil rights within the context of criminal proceedings. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that respects the rights of individuals while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The implications of this decision could resonate beyond Rajasthan, influencing how similar cases are handled in other jurisdictions, and potentially leading to a broader recognition of the civil rights of incarcerated individuals across India.
Title: Anand Singh v. Union of India (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence)
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4405/2025
Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:27805]
Counsel for petitioner: Ashvin Garg, Anutosh Mishra
Counsel for respondent: Jitendra Singh Poonia (SPP), Manevendra Singh Shekhawat (PP)
To learn more about the latest developments in Crime & Law, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
